Advanced Fiber Reinforced Composites essays

Advanced Fiber Reinforced Composites essays Fiber-reinforced composites are composed of axial  particulates  embedded in a matrix  material.  The objective of fiber-reinforced composites is, to obtain a material with  high specific strength, high specific modulus, high strength, and high elastic modulus for its weight. The strength is obtained by having the applied load  transmitted from the matrix to the fibers.  Hence, interfacial bonding is important.Classic examples of fiber-reinforced composites include fiberglass and wood.A commonly used glass fiber composition  for  structural composites  is E-glass, in which E stands for "electrical type". It is  a lime-aluminum-borosilicate glass with zero or low sodium and potassium levels. It is  popular because it has chemical durability. A more advanced and expensive fiber  is  S-glass,  a  magnesia-alumina-silicate glass that  is used  for high-strength applications. There are three types of fiber geometry: There are 2 different geometries for aligned fibers: Racing cars used to be made of the same sort of materials as road cars that is steel, aluminum and other metals. In the early 1980s, however, Formula 1 underwent the beginnings of a revolution that has become its hallmark today: the use of carbon composite materials to build the chassis. Today, most of the racing car chassis - the monocoque, suspension, wings and engine cover - is built with carbon fiber. The first step along the way to making a carbon fiber car looks more like a clothing factory than a car factory. In each Formula 1 team factory is a room with large tables on which vast sheets of what looks like cloth are laid out and cut to size. Taken from large textile-like rolls, these sheets are highly pliable, flexible, and unlike textiles, will end up looking nothing like their original form. Once the material is cut out from the cloth-like roll, it is taken to a design room and placed into molds. The position of the cloth within the mold is important, as it...

Group Polarization and Competition in Political Be Essays

Group Polarization and Competition in Political Be Essays Group Polarization and Competition in Political Behavior On Tuesday, November 14, 1995, in what has been perceived as the years biggest non-event, the federal government shut down all "non-essential" services due to what was, for all intents and purposes, a game of national "chicken" between the House Speaker and the President. And, at an estimated cost of 200 million dollars a day, this dubious battle of dueling egos did not come cheap (Bradsher, 1995, p.16). Why do politicians find it almost congenitally impossible to cooperate? What is it about politics and power that seem to always put them at odds with good government? Indeed, is an effective, well run government even possible given the current adversarial relationship between our two main political parties? It would seem that the exercise of power for its own sake, and a competitive situation in which one side must always oppose the other on any issue, is incompatible with the cooperation and compromise necessary for the government to function. As the United States becomes more extreme in its beliefs in general, group polarization and competition, which requires a mutual exclusivity of goal attainment, will lead to more "showdown" situations in which the goal of good government gives way to political posturing and power-mongering. In this paper I will analyze recent political behavior in terms of two factors: Group behavior with an emphasis on polarization, and competition. However, one should keep in mind that these two factors are interrelated. Group polarization tends to exacerbate inter-group competition by driving any two groups who initially disagree farther apart in their respective views. In turn, a competitive situation in which one side must lose in order for the other to win (and political situations are nearly always competitive), will codify the differences between groups - leading to further extremism by those seeking power within the group - and thus, to further group polarization. In the above example, the two main combatants, Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich, were virtually forced to take uncompromising, disparate views because of the very nature of authority within their respective political groups. Group polarization refers to the tendency of groups to gravitate to the extreme of whatever opinion the group shares (Baron & Graziano, 1991, p.498-99). Therefore, if the extreme is seen as a desirable characteristic, individuals who exhibit extreme beliefs will gain authority through referent power. In other words, they will have characteristics that other group members admire and seek to emulate (p. 434). Unfortunately, this circle of polarization and authority can lead to a bizarre form of "one-upsmanship" in which each group member seeks to gain power and approval by being more extreme than the others. The end result is extremism in the pursuit of authority without any regard to the practicality or "reasonableness" of the beliefs in question. Since the direction of polarization is currently in opposite directions in our two party system, it is almost impossible to find a common ground between them. In addition, the competitive nature of the two party system many times eliminates even the possibility of compromise since failure usually leads to a devastating loss of power. If both victory and extremism are necessary to retain power within the group, and if, as Alfie Kohn (1986) stated in his book No Contest: The Case Against Competition, competition is "mutually exclusive goal attainment" (one side must lose in order for the other to win), then compromise and cooperation are impossible (p. 136). This is especially so if the opponents are dedicated to retaining power "at all costs." That power is an end in itself is made clear by the recent shutdown of the government. It served no logical purpose. Beyond costing a lot of money, it had no discernible effect except as a power struggle between two political heavyweights. According to David Kipnis (1976, cited in Baron & Graziano, 1991), one of the negative effects of power is, in fact, the tendency to regard it as its own end, and to ignore the possibility of disastrous results from the reckless use of power (p. 433). Therefore, it would seem that (at least in this case) government policy is created and implemented, not with regard to its effectiveness as government policy, but only with regard to its value as a tool for accumulating and maintaining power. Another of Kipnis's negative effects of power is the tendency to use it for selfish purposes (p.433). In politics this can be seen as the predilection towards making statements for short term political gain that are either nonsensical or contradictory to past positions held by the candidates themselves. While this may not be the use of actual power, it is